New Pathways 1 Running head: NEW PATHWAYS INTO ROBOTICS New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation Natalie Rusk1, Mitchel Resnick2, Robbie Berg3, Margaret Pezalla-Granlund4 Corresponding author: Natalie Rusk, [email protected], MIT Media Lab, 20 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139, 617-253-0330. 1 MIT Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA and Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University, Medford, MA. 2 MIT Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 3 Physics Department, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 4 Learning Technologies Center, Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN New Pathways 2 ABSTRACT This paper suggests new strategies for introducing students to robotics technologies and concepts, and argues for the importance of providing multiple entry points into robotics. In particular, the paper describes four strategies that have been successful in engaging a broad range of learners: (1) focusing on themes, not just challenges; (2) combining art and engineering; (3) encouraging storytelling; (4) organizing exhibitions, rather than competitions. The paper describes a new technology, called the PicoCricket, that supports these strategies by enabling young people to design and program artistic creations that integrate light, sound, music, and motion. The paper concludes with an analysis of robotics activities in three educational environments, examining how these new strategies and technologies can engage young people with diverse interests and learning styles. Keywords : robotics, art, creativity, learning styles, gender, technology New Pathways 3 New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation IINTRODUCTION Picture these scenes from two different classrooms. In one classroom, students are working in groups to build cars out of LEGO parts, then programming their cars to back up when they bump into a wall. Meanwhile, in another classroom down the hall, students are creating an interactive sculpture garden with mechanisms that spin and play music when someone comes near. In many ways, the experiences in the two classrooms are similar. In both classrooms, students are using the same robotics technology. They are learning similar math and science concepts, and developing similar technical and programming skills. But the differences between the two experiences are also important. Different students are attracted to different types of robotics activities. Students interested in cars are likely to be motivated to create motorized vehicles, while students with interests in art or music are likely to be more motivated to create interactive sculptures. This paper examines strategies for introducing students to robotics technologies and concepts, and argues for the importance of providing multiple pathways into robotics, to ensure that there are entry points to engage young people with diverse interests and learning styles. When people think of robotics, they often think of popular images of robots in movies, such as R2D2 in StarWars. Increasingly, robots are becoming available as consumer products, such as the Roomba vacuum-cleaner robot and the Aibo walking robotic dog. But these stereotypical images can be misleading. Walking and rolling New Pathways 4 robots are just one type of robotics. Robotics includes all types of programmable machines that perform actions based on inputs from sensors – everything from a home security system that sounds an alarm when it detects motion to a greenhouse that regulates its temperature and humidity. In recent years, robotics has become popular as an educational activity internationally. A growing number of schools and other educational organizations are offering opportunities for young people to build their own computer-controlled robots, using programmable construction kits such as LEGO Mindstorms. For example, the FIRST LEGO League robot challenge, open to students ages 9-14, grew from 200 student teams in the US in 1998 to more than 4,600 student teams in the US in 2006 – and more than 2,800 student teams elsewhere in the world (FIRST, 2006). One reason for the educational appeal of robotics activities is that they involve multiple types of design: physical design of structures and mechanisms and computational design of behavior. In the process of designing and programming robots, students learn important engineering, math, and computer science concepts (Druin & Hendler, 2000; Martin, 1996; McCartney, 1996). However, the way robotics is currently introduced in educational settings is unnecessarily narrow. In most classrooms and workshops, the first robotics activity begins with everyone building a car. Exploring a wider range of possible applications has the potential to engage young people with a wider range of interests. Young people who are not interested in traditional approaches to robotics become motivated when robotics activities are introduced in the context of storytelling (Bers, in press) or in connection with other disciplines and interest areas, such as art and music. New Pathways 5 Although popular, robotic competitions tend to attract a much higher percentage of boys than girls, particularly in free-choice learning environments such as after-school programs and museum classes. Even with efforts to increase female participation, only 30% of the FIRST LEGO League participants are girls (Melchior, Cutter, & Cohen, 2004). Researchers have noted a gender imbalance in the overall participation rates, at both the K-12 and university levels (Melchior et al., 2004; Turkbak & Berg, 2002). As explained in a report from the American Association of University Women (2000): “Girls and other nontraditional users of computer science – who are not enamored of technology for technology’s sake – may be far more interested in using the technology if they encounter it in the context of a discipline that interests them” (p. v). The AAUW report proposes that “computation should be integrated across the curriculum, into such subject areas and disciplines as art, music, and literature, as well as engineering and science” (p. xii). The AAUW report cites a study by the National Research Council (1999) that concludes “fluency is best acquired when students do coherent, ongoing projects to achieve specific goals in subjects that are relevant and interesting to them” (AAUW, p. xi). This paper introduces several strategies we have found successful for engaging a broader group of young people who might not otherwise become engaged in learning opportunities with robotics. Then, the paper describes how these strategies have been applied in three different educational environments with three different communities of learners. Finally, the paper considers learning outcomes and challenges associated with these strategies for broadening participation. New Pathways 6 STRATEGIES FOR BROADENING PARTICIPATION This section discusses a set of strategies that we developed in our fieldwork introducing robotics activities and ideas to children, teens, families, and educators. This fieldwork has included workshops for children and families at museums (Resnick et al., 2000), activities for teens and staff in after-school centers, and a robotics course for undergraduates (Turbak & Berg, 2002). 1. Focus on Themes (Not Just Challenges) Robotics workshops typically focus on a particular engineering challenge, such as “Make a robot that can maneuver through an obstacle course.” Instead of focusing on a single design challenge, we have found it valuable to structure workshops around a shared theme. For example, in a workshop around the theme of Music Makers, participants create new types of programmable musical instruments; in an Interactive Jewelry workshop, they create different kinds of wearable art; in a Storybook Scenes workshop, they create robotic characters based on a familiar book or movie. We look for themes that strike a balance between being broad enough to give everyone freedom to work on a project that connects with their interests, and specific enough to foster a sense of shared experience among workshop participants. We have found that workshop participants, by working on projects based on personal interests, are more motivated to persist when they encounter problems in the design process, and more likely to continue to extend their projects to explore new directions (Bers, in press; Resnick et al., 1998). As a result, they form deeper connections to concepts and ideas underlying the workshop activities. New Pathways 7 One advantage of organizing workshops around open-ended themes is that it engages participants in “problem finding”, not just problem solving. In most real-world design projects, a critical part of the process is identifying and refining the problem to be solved. Theme-based workshops provide students with opportunities to develop their ability to find as well as solve problems – in contrast to most school activities in which students are presented with fully-framed problem. To start classes and workshops based on a theme, we have found it useful to provide at least two different sample projects to spark ideas and give participants a sense of the range of what’s possible. For example, in a workshop on creating a machine that can paint, we showed one machine that painted by pulling a brush, and another that spun the paper while paint was dripped from above. In a workshop on creating musical instruments, we demonstrated one instrument that adjusted the pitch of a quacking sound